Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections example, at what stage of electoral process the violation was committed, who committed the violation, and whether the violation influenced or might have influenced the outcome of the elections.229 Judges and arbiters should provide relevant parties with the means to understand the reasoning behind the decision. The tribunal or commission should also provide the concurring or dissenting opinions of the judges or arbiters. This will permit transparency about the reasoning by which the arbiters reached a given conclusion and on any personal legal views that entered into the decision. A legal justification for a decision will also facilitate the enforcement of the decision and help in establishing the legitimacy of the final electoral results. D. Restoration of the Infringed Rights The right to remedy also embraces the right to redress for the injury suffered by the claimant. For example, in Petkov v. Bulgaria, three applicants alleged that their rights to run for office in the 2001 parliamentary elections had been unfairly abrogated.230 The applicants’ coalition withdrew their names from the candidates’ list on account of their links with the former State security agencies.231 The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in their favor and declared the striking of the applicants off the lists of candidates null and void. However, the electoral authorities failed to give effect to this final and binding decision and thus, the applicants brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights. They claimed that the right to an effective remedy had been denied “in respect of the electoral authorities' refusal to reinstate them on the lists of candidates.”232 The European Court acknowledged the failure on the part of electoral authorities and that it resulted in a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of Additional Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The Court added that even if the authorities disapprove the findings of the court (due to erroneous rulings or acts beyond its jurisdiction) they cannot refuse to comply with the judgment in a democratic society abiding by the rule of law. The right to an effective remedy requires the relevant authorities to comply with the ruling and to attempt Kazakhstan Report, supra note 225, at 5. Petkov v. Bulgaria, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, Judgment of 11 June 2009, ¶¶ 55-82. 231 Id. ¶ 60. 232 Id. ¶¶ 67, 83. 229 230 74